Bengali Antinatalists | Natalist Uses fallacious tactics to justify procreation . @BengaliAntinatalists | Uploaded April 2023 | Updated October 2024, 2 hours ago.
This is the re-upload of the original video by @TheNutrivore .
The original video had a filtered comment section. Despite requesting the owner to open up the comments section, they have refused to do so.
---------------------------
If any individual who subscribes to natalism believes they possess legitimate counterarguments to the positions articulated by the antinatalist, it is requested that they refrain from employing fallacious tactics such as red herrings, exemplified by the actions of @appoota to gain an advantage during debates, and instead provide their arguments in the comments section below.
Here I have transcribed all the arguments :
Argument 1: Since children can’t consent to being born, it’s unethical to impose life (give birth) in a world in which the potential for extreme suffering (Chronic Illness and Disability,Mental Illness: ) exists. Having children means gambling with the welfare of someone else. It means conducting Frankenstein experiments you can't control in which someone else pays the price. It means playing god while lacking a god-like control over the outcomes.
Argument 2: As long as people are giving birth, a certain percentage of those children will end up suffering. When people decide to have children, they are implicitly prioritizing the existence of happy people at the expense of those who will suffer. They are making a value judgment that happy lives are more important than suffering lives.
Argument 3: Antinatalists believe that suffering will always takes precedence, and better no one exist than one person endure a nightmare existence. If the possibility of creating even one miserable, suicidal person exists, then it’s unethical to have children. Either way, one group of people has to be sacrificed to the other. Either miserable people can be sacrificed so happy people can exist, or potential happy people can be sacrificed so suffering people don't have to exist.
Argument 4: Potential happy people won't miss what they haven't been alive to experience, but suffering people will suffer from existing. Therefore, it makes more sense prioritize suffering rather than happiness.
There is no Moral Obligation to create Happiness But there is a moral obligation to refrain from causing someone unnecessary suffering.
(bringing someone into existence for the sake of letting someone experience "happiness" is a terrible idea. Not only are you doing something completely unnecessary,but you're guaranteeing loads of unnecessary suffering that the newborn will no doubt experience as they experience life.)
Argument 5: it wrong to be responsible for the suffering of another?
is it morally not ok to impose risk of harm upon another.
Its only permissible if the harm or risk imposed was to prevent a greater harm or if consent has been been secured in the first place.
Argument 6: Procreation is human right violation,.if one genuinely believes that all individuals have a right to life, then one must also accept that individual's personal decision to not exercise their right, i.e. to not continue living.
And since currently there is no freedom given to an individual for an instant ,painless and guaranteed way out of life (and existence),
therefore life is a prison and a rights violation.
#antinatalismdebate
#antinatalism
This is the re-upload of the original video by @TheNutrivore .
The original video had a filtered comment section. Despite requesting the owner to open up the comments section, they have refused to do so.
---------------------------
If any individual who subscribes to natalism believes they possess legitimate counterarguments to the positions articulated by the antinatalist, it is requested that they refrain from employing fallacious tactics such as red herrings, exemplified by the actions of @appoota to gain an advantage during debates, and instead provide their arguments in the comments section below.
Here I have transcribed all the arguments :
Argument 1: Since children can’t consent to being born, it’s unethical to impose life (give birth) in a world in which the potential for extreme suffering (Chronic Illness and Disability,Mental Illness: ) exists. Having children means gambling with the welfare of someone else. It means conducting Frankenstein experiments you can't control in which someone else pays the price. It means playing god while lacking a god-like control over the outcomes.
Argument 2: As long as people are giving birth, a certain percentage of those children will end up suffering. When people decide to have children, they are implicitly prioritizing the existence of happy people at the expense of those who will suffer. They are making a value judgment that happy lives are more important than suffering lives.
Argument 3: Antinatalists believe that suffering will always takes precedence, and better no one exist than one person endure a nightmare existence. If the possibility of creating even one miserable, suicidal person exists, then it’s unethical to have children. Either way, one group of people has to be sacrificed to the other. Either miserable people can be sacrificed so happy people can exist, or potential happy people can be sacrificed so suffering people don't have to exist.
Argument 4: Potential happy people won't miss what they haven't been alive to experience, but suffering people will suffer from existing. Therefore, it makes more sense prioritize suffering rather than happiness.
There is no Moral Obligation to create Happiness But there is a moral obligation to refrain from causing someone unnecessary suffering.
(bringing someone into existence for the sake of letting someone experience "happiness" is a terrible idea. Not only are you doing something completely unnecessary,but you're guaranteeing loads of unnecessary suffering that the newborn will no doubt experience as they experience life.)
Argument 5: it wrong to be responsible for the suffering of another?
is it morally not ok to impose risk of harm upon another.
Its only permissible if the harm or risk imposed was to prevent a greater harm or if consent has been been secured in the first place.
Argument 6: Procreation is human right violation,.if one genuinely believes that all individuals have a right to life, then one must also accept that individual's personal decision to not exercise their right, i.e. to not continue living.
And since currently there is no freedom given to an individual for an instant ,painless and guaranteed way out of life (and existence),
therefore life is a prison and a rights violation.
#antinatalismdebate
#antinatalism
